Bit of Vlogging, and Happy Halloween!

      I know I've blogged repeatedly in the last few days, but I just watched an informative vlog by the somewhat Youtube-famous Hank Green on the Sci Show channel, telling of five extremely rare species (just like in my weekly segment!) that I thought I should share:

      And as its Halloween, here's a picture of the creepy Aye-Aye, Daubentonia madagascariensis, just for fun:

To read about more creepy animals on this frightful day, visit this recent post at EDGE Blog!

Critically Endangered Species of the Week: the Ganges Shark!

     Its that time of the week again - here is the third critically endangered species of the week! This week I thought I would look at a better known group; sharks. Possibly suprisingly, the most famous sharks whose anthropogenic deaths make the news are not considered by the IUCN as critically endangered (although the majority of sharks are threatened). However, there is a reasonably long list of other shark species in imminent danger of extinction, including the Ganges Shark.

About:
      The Ganges Shark, Glyphis gangeticus, is a freshwater riverine, and possibly also inshore marine/estuarine, shark that is very poorly understood. The species is one of the 6 known species of river shark, all of which are very rare and likely endangered [3, 5]. It is known from a very small number of specimens, and is currently inadequately described. Maximum size is estimated as around 2m in length [1, 2, 3], and individuals have slender teeth and small eyes, suggesting the species has a fish-based diet and is adapted to the turbid waters in its geographical range. The species has a typical 'shark shape' (known as a requiem shark, belonging to the family Carcharhinidae); it is stocky with a rounded snout, and has a uniform grey to brownish colouration [2, 5, 6].

      The species has been implicated in numerous attacks on humans in the Ganges [1, 4...], however the infamous Bull Shark also occurs in the same river system with superficially similar characteristics, and therefore may be responsible for the attacks.

 

Diagrams of the Ganges Shark, Glyphis gangeticus. Confirmed photographs of the species appear

very rare and difficult to find! Image on top from Marine Species Identification Portal [6],

image on bottom from WWF India [5].

Number left in existence:

      The species was originally known from only 3 museum specimens, all collected in the nineteenth century [1, 3,...]. There are no records between 1867 and 1996, and the sightings in this last year are unconfirmed [1,...]. A specimen collected in 2001 has been identified as the Ganges Shark, however clearly the species is now extremely rare, with a likely decreasing population trend.

Geographical Range in the wild:

      The Ganges Shark is known only from the lower parts of the Ganges-Hooghli river system, West Bengal, India; it is endemic to India [1, 4, 5]. This likely includes the rivers rivers Hooghly, Ganges, Brahmaputra and Mahanadi [4, 5]. Wider ranges assigned, including marine areas, are likely based on other requiem shark species, such as the Bull Shark.

Geographical location of Glyphis gangeticus; the Ganges-Hooghli river system.

From IUCN [1].

Why they are endangered:

• Presumably confusion with the much more aggressive and dangerous to humans Bull Shark has lead to unfounded fear of the species, leading to preemptive attacks and killings of individuals by humans.
• The species has been traditionally and recently fished in the Ganges-Hooghli river system. It appears in the highly damaging oriental fin trade and is consumed locally - there are major fisheries for sharks in India, and large inshore requiem sharks are frequently targeted [1, 5]. Even low levels of exploitation by humans for resources can devastate populations due to their slow growth and small litter size [3].
• Individuals appear in the international curios trade of shark jaws [1].
• As with many species, overfishing, and habitat destruction and degradation from pollution, increasing river utilisation and management (e.g. construction of dams) are highly damaging to populations [1, 3, 5]. Furthermore, freshwater organisms cannot readily adapt to other conditions if their habitats are affected.

What can we do to help?

       Thankfully Glyphis gangeticus is now protected under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 (Schedule I, Part II A) [1, 5]. However, only 10 Chondrichthyan species (the group including sharks and rays) are currently protected under this act, and the effectiveness of this measure is unknown and regulations are difficult to enforce - particularly due to the culture of local populations, and the prevelance of widespread fisheries for international trade [1].

       Furthermore, this act does not protect the species from population crashes due to habitat destruction - to prevent this locals need to be increasingly educated and informed about the danger to the species.
      The Ganges Shark, based on the fact that very little is known about the life-style or populations of this group, is a good species to illustrate the huge need for greater research and sampling of particular taxa and locations to protect ecosystem diversity.

References:
1. Compagno, L.J.V. 2007. Glyphis gangeticus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed 30 October 2012.
2. Wikipedia, 2012. Ganges Shark. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_shark>. Accessed 30 October 2012.
3. ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research. The Mysterious, Endangered River Sharks (Glyphis spp.). <http://www.elasmo-research.org/conservation/river_sharks.htm>. Accessed 30 October 2012.
4. Shark Foundation. Ganges Shark (Glyphis gangeticus). <http://www.shark.ch/Database/Search/species.html?sh_id=1079>. Accessed 30 October 2012.
5. WWF India. Ganges Shark. <http://www.wwfindia.org/about_wwf/priority_species/lesser_known_species/ganges_shark/>. Accessed 30 October 2012.
6. Marine Species Identification Portal. Ganges Shark (Glyphis gangeticus). <http://species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=sharks&menuentry=soorten&id=463&tab=beschrijving>. Accessed 30 October 2012.

Planetary Boundaries: Have We Crossed the Line?

      In one of my recent lectures a concept was discussed; that of Planetary Boundaries, and what use they can be. The study by Rockström et al., 2009b, entitled 'Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity', in a sense summarises humanity's current impact on aspects of the Earth. Despite now being a few years old, and despite it's relevance to my interests and this blog, I had never seen this topic being discussed in this way. I thought it might, however, help readers to visualise impacts and figures that are mentioned in this blog.

       The concept is based on the idea that human actions have become the major factor of environmental change, and that once human activity causes certain environmental categories or processes to cross particular thresholds, the Planetary Boundaries, we risk possible catastrophic planetary change being triggered. This means the more lines we cause the planet to cross, and the further they do, the more likely we will so damage the Earth that humanity can no longer operate. The paper advises we define and respect these parameters to remain in "a safe operating space for humanity."

        Rockström et al., 2009a&b, go on to discuss the 9 specific environmental processes they deem of greatest importance, which each have a determined value set at a safe distance from a dangerous level, or an intrinsic threshold (such as temperature and ice-albedo feedback with preserving sea ice). A follow-up paper (which is much easier to read!), titled 'How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth', by Steffen, Rockström and Costanza, 2011, more obviously define these boundaries and their usage as in the table below.

The 9 processes and each of their boundaries defined, as in Rockström et al., 2009a, and Steffen, Rockström and Costanza, 2011, with the table obtained from the latter.

       The problem is, as both papers note, we have already surpassed 3 of the 9 category boundaries - namely those of the Nitrogen Cycle, Climate Change (based on carbon dioxide concentrations and radiative forcing change), and most significantly Rates of Biodiversity Loss (by the huge increase, and its relevance to this blog!). While the other two crossed boundaries are clearly important, biodiversity loss by increased extinction rate is an estimated more than 10X higher than the safe limit, and 100-1000X (+) higher than the pre-industrial value (similar to a 'background extinction rate')! By the findings of these papers humans are clearly having a devastating effect on biodiversity loss, and therefore ecosystem functionality (I will discuss implications of loss in later posts). This is visibly shocking when represented by a diagram:

The 9 Earth processes, with the cones representing the Earth's current position, and the globe  the boundaries for each. Clearly we are in the 'danger-zone' with all 3 red/orange processes, but biodiversity loss is hugely above safe levels. Diagram from Rockström et al., 2009.

       The purpose of this type of quantification on protecting the planet is towards a new approach in understanding, measuring and tackling global sustainability, before the Earth is irreversibly damaged. The concept gives a necessary framework to a complicated, significant and wide topic that is increasingly in need of organised action to combat the effects of environmental change.

       However, there are important issues associated with the Planetary Boundaries concept, and thus the papers themselves, including:

• As Steffen, Rockström and Costanza, 2011, discuss, there would need to be changes to governance and the creation of an authoritative institution to ensure the boundaries are respected. 
• In this same vein, it would be hard to enforce the strict controls that would be needed, particularly in disadvantaged countries.
• The definitions of the actual boundaries are at present markedly arbitrary, and are still uncertain, therefore require a great deal more work to be definitive. For example, extinction rate for biodiversity loss is extremely difficult to calculate (as discussed in a previous post); it must be done through assumptions and extrapolation, and therefore cannot be entirely relied upon. 
• Not all processes could even be assigned a boundary - it was not known how to calculate even an uncertain boundary for Chemical Pollution or Atmospheric Aerosol Loading.
• The papers point out that the authors are not sure 9 boundaries are sufficient to define planetary sustainability; this year Steve Running, and Kate Raworth (Oxfam) both suggested other boundaries should be included [4].

       The fact that this concept is being debated and discussed is nevertheless an important step towards understanding the complexities of Earth-system science, the impact humans have on the planet, and the possible consequences this can have on other species, and our own.

If you want to read more, but less confusing, detail about the Planetary Boundaries, you could head over to the page on Wikipedia, which also contains a list of additional commentary and other papers on the subject.

References:
1. Rockström, J. et al., 2009a. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.
2. Rockström, J. et al., 2009b. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14: 2.
3. Steffen, W., Rockström, J. and Costanza, R. 2011. How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach To Growth. Solutions Journal, 2: 3.
4. Wikipedia, 2012. Planetary Boundaries. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries> First accessed 28/10/2012. [WWW].

Are we 'ducking the issue of climate change'?

      Linking nicely to my post on the monetary costs of biodiversity targets, an interesting article has just come out by the Guardian's Adam Vaughan and Camila Ruz - 'Sir David Attenborough: US politicians duck climate change because of cost'. This talks about Sir David Attenborough's accusation that US politicians have been dismissing the realities of climate change because of the economic cost of dealing with it. The article contains a shortened video of the interview that is worth watching.

      He reiterates the view that climate change is not an unnecessary expense, but one that has to be afforded. Well done Sir David for making your opinion known! (I particularly like your words on improved women's rights possibly slowing population growth!).
     

Critically Endangered Species of the Week: Franklin's Bumble Bee!

About:

        The 'disappearance of the bumble bees' is a common concern, with sightings of many species drastically down in the last decade. Franklin's Bumble Bee (Bombus franklini) may be one of those species in the greatest peril, with one of the smallest distributions of the genus Bombus.

        Bumble bees are necessary pollinators of many crop and wild plant species, and for this reason are essential for reproduction of commercial plants, and to many natural food webs. Like other bees, the species is eusocial, living in colonies with specific roles, and has a flight season from end-Spring to Summer [4].

        Franklin's Bumble Bee can be identified by its extended yellow colouration in the middle of the body, forming an inverted U-shape and extending beyond the wing bases, a lack of yellow on the abdomen, a predominantly black head with yellow at the top and white colouration at the abdomen tip [1; 4].

Franklin's Bumble Bee, Bombus franklini, showing the
distinctive colouration.
Photo by Robbin Thorp.

Number left in existence:



       The species is classified as critically endangered, however it may already be extinct! This is based on the research and expertise of Dr R.W. Thorpe, who has extensively surveyed populations since 1998. These supported a drastic population decrease from numerous new sites in 1998 (94 individuals; 4) -2000 to only one sighted individual in 2006, with a lack of any definate sightings since then [2; 3].



Map of Bombus franklini sightings; red dots from
2003, the single red star the last locality from 2006.
Image from The Xerces Society [4].



       Exact numbers are hard to determine, as with most species, but appear to be at dangerously low levels.

Geographical Range in the wild:

       Occuring only in the USA, Bombus franklini inhabits a tiny area 190 miles N-S and 70 miles E-W in Southern Oregan to Northern California [1; 3; 4]. This is possibly the most limited geographical distribution of a bumble bee in the world.

Why they are endangered:

• Human introduction of commercial bumble bee species for crop pollination has caused exotic diseases to devastate wild populations [3; 4].
• Intensified human agriculture has resulted in habitat destruction and degradation that may threaten or fragment any developing populations [4].
• Agricultural pesticides can be toxic, accumulate in colonies or kill plants required by the bees [4].

What can we do to help?

       Unfortunately, there are currently no conservation measures in place to protect Bombus franklini. Methods of protection should be developed and enacted, such as managing the movement of alien, commercial species to limit the spread of exotic diseases [3]. Further research is also necessarily to determine the need for habitat protection [4], or whether Franklin's Bumble Bee is already extinct.

References:

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. http://ucanr.edu/blogs/bugsquad/index.cfm?tagname=Bombus%20franklini (also photo).

3. IUCN Red List.

4. The Xerces Society.

'Global Campaigning': Blog Action Day 2012

        Having missed this years Blog Action Day (15th October; I noticed on the 16th!), partnered by Greenpeace on the theme 'the Power of We', I thought the movement deserved a mention here. The Day aims for global publication on a particular topic, using volunteer bloggers, tweeters etc. I would like to add that I wouldn't consider Greenpeace my top pro-environment organisation, and their past of criticised semi-violent movements [2; 3], and vehement rejection of GM crops [1] has tended to put me off.

        However I can say this partnership seems well intentioned; a move towards what humans can accomplish as a group.  The obvious implications of this way of thinking for Greenpeace, and this blog, would be towards minimising our negative impact on the environment and other species.

        On the 15th October, 2,400 registered bloggers from 111 countries [4] wrote on this theme, and as support Greenpeace made available their entire archive of 150,000 videos and photos for the event [5]. I do believe this type of action can benefit causes on environmental change and biodiversity, and facilitate needed discussion on what we can do, and whether we should - so here's some extra publication for it (I feel it needs it, given I had no idea it was running at the time!).

         Are these events the way forward for environmental, or otherwise, campaigning, rather than the like of picket lines? And despite my support of the ideal, how much of an effect did this event have on the public? Anyone heard of it?

To see more of the results, visit Blog Action Day 2012 or some of the posts.

References:

1. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics
3. http://theconversation.edu.au/greenpeaces-gm-vandalism-bad-for-farmers-bad-for-science-bad-for-australia-2349
4. http://blogactionday.org/2012/09/17/greenpeace-partner-blog-action-day-open-their-archive/#
5. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/global-campaigning-blog-action-day/blog/42595/

Is Conservation Really Worth It?

       I have recently been focusing on, and will for much of this blog, the current state of biodiversity and what we can do to improve it. However, other opinions and impacts on this subject need to be assessed and considered to cultivate an unbiased view on conservation.

       To this aim I thought I would take a look at a report recently published (6 days ago) on the projected costs associated with protecting species. The report, by McCarthy et al., 2012, is titled Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs.


       The report estimates the costs of meeting the new strategic plan on biodiversity by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes 20 targets to be met by 2020, and can be viewed here. It's worth scanning if you're interested, as it includes such targets as:

"By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced." (CBD, 2011, Target 5).

McCarthy et al., 2012, used data on birds to determine the costs relating to preventing threatened species becoming extinct, maintaining their conservation status, and managing and expanding protected areas (to 17% of terrestrial areas etc.). Again, it is worth scanning the report to look at the estimated costs for different groups, the information being too in depth to record here. They did find, however, a combined cost for achieving species and site CBD targets in the region of $78.1 billion US dollars annually! The report therefore clearly suggests a much increased global biodiversity conservation budget is required.
      


Can we really afford to protect and conserve the Earth's ecosystems?
Photo from greenpeace.org

      Without getting too much into critique, there are a few inaccuracies/areas that don't seem quite right:

• When calculating the cost for protecting and managing all global sites for avian conservation the total came to $65.1 billion annually. However adding sites for whatever 'other taxa' only increases the cost by $11 billion?
• Experts on each species advised current and required costs, but on only 211 globally threatened bird species, and estimated costs for other species based on this. This seems innaccurate, but may have been the easiest method.
• As the report notes, these huge figures do not guarantee success, and investment past 2020 will almost certainly be needed to maintain any results.
• The reality of required conservation is not a price-tag for saving all species, but a great deal of local knowledge, projects and work into preserving our ecosystems.

The question many will ask is; can we afford to spend this much? Despite the area needing more research and definitive figures, perhaps we should be asking, as Leo Hickman of the Guardian says on this topic, "can we afford not to?".

Now I'm not trying to influence, but as McCarthy et al., 2012, point out "the total required is less than 20% of annual global consumer spending on soft drinks."



For more in depth reading on this topic, see the actual report here, or read Leo Hickmans 'Eco Audit' here. The Eco Audit page seeks to answer some questions brought up by the report through correspondence with the authors and experts, and discusses the implications.

Critically Endangered Species of the Week: the Mexican Axolotl!

          This week we are starting off a series of posts each featuring a new critically endangered species! I decided to do this to highlight a few of the many species currently classified as ‘critically endangered’ due to human action (see the IUCN Red List), with the view that knowledge is a step in the right direction to changing attitudes, and to make people more conscientious about our affect on other species.

          One of my favourite strange creatures (I would love to see a wild one!), the Mexican Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum), is our first critically endangered species of the week:

                                                   Look at how cute it is - it's so smiley!

   But that's not the only reason to conserve a species of course...

       Photo by Stephen Dalton/Animals Animals at National Geographic.

         



About: 

A Mexican Axolotl with typical colouration.
Photo by Richard Griffiths at EDGE.

         The Mexican Axolotl is a species of salamander

(Order Caudata) fairly common in the pet trade, but extremely rare in the wild. Individuals often live in the larval state for the majority of their lives, inhabiting fairly deep-water lakes (a condition known as neoteny) - features include the external gills from the back of the head and a tad-pole like tail. In rare cases, Axolotls may metamorphose into the mature form, exiting the water.

         Axolotls are typically black or mottled brown, but captive individuals may often be albino, as in the photo above. They can live up to 15 years, and have a diet of molluscs, worms, insect larvae, crustaceans and some fish.

         The Mexican Axolotl is classified as critically endangered as of 2010 because its Area of Occupancy (where it lives) is under 10 square kilometres!



Geographical range of the wild Mexican Axolotl.

Number left in existence:

         The current wild population is very small, although numbers have not been recently assessed - surveys around 2002/03 found fewer than 100 individuals, but populations based on other studies appear to be decreasing (IUCN; Zambrano, 2006).

Geographical Range in the wild: 

         Found only in canals and wetlands in the vicinity of Lake Xochimilco, at the southern edge of Mexico city, central Mexico. The species has disappeared from most of the lakes in its original range.    

Why they are endangered:

• Urbanisation of the area polluting the canal and lake system native to the species, and local consumption of the species, have both contributed to their decline.
• Drainage of the lake system is destroying and causing fragmentation of their habitat.
• Increased, unregulated tourism causes further pollution.
• Young animals are targeted for medicinal purposes.
• Alien species of large fish introduced by humans (e.g. tilapia and carp) have increased competition and predation.
• Poor water quality from past pollution and invasive species appear to have spread disease.

The international pet trade also used to affect wild populations, but it is likely that most pets are now bred in captivity (so I can feel better about wanting one?).

What can we do to help?

       Conservation action is ongoing, focusing on raising the profile of Lake Xochimilco through education and nature tourism, and habitat restoration.

       When threats are mitigated, plans hope to reintroduce individuals from captive breeding colonies (from biomedical research due to their ability to regrow limbs!, and the pet trade)

For more information on the Mexican Axolotl, and to investigate my sources, visit EDGE, the IUCN or the National Geographic.

Earth's Current Biodiversity

There is a valid argument, as stated in my last post, that extinction is entirely natural, and has been happening for hundreds of millions of years before human evolution. It is certainly the case that extinction is a natural process taking place before human evolution, but sources estimate current loss of species to be between 100 and 10,000 times higher [1, 2] than the expected natural rate!

Base rates of extinction are something that meddling cannot help – competition and lack of needed adaptations will result in loss of a species, and this is necessary for the proliferation of other species. However mankind is clearly increasing this rate of extinction to a level that has serious consequences for the planet.

Here are some fairly shocking statistics that demonstrate Earth’s current biodiversity:

·         19,817 of the around 53,000 species so far assessed on IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are vulnerable, to critically endangered. This is likely much higher, compared to the estimated almost 9 million species on the planet [5].

·         Abundance of species declined by 40% between 1970 and 2000 [2].

·         Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year [2].

·         1/4 mammals, 1/8 birds and 1/3 amphibians are in danger of extinction (as of 2008! [1]).

Last Chance to See BBC [1] is an informative, but depressing, read on the worrisome state of Earth’s biodiversity, as seen in 2008.

As a quick warning on the above, don’t necessarily believe these figures – there are many assumptions associated with working out extinction rates, which can mean the figure under or overestimates. It is important to remember that background extinction rates (without humans) vary, most species likely haven’t yet been discovered (see [4]) and estimates have to be calculated, not observed ([3] for more criticisms).

                                  A beautiful Scimitar Horned Oryx (Oryx dammah), extinct in
                                                                               the wild as of 2000 [6].

Sources:

1.      www.bbc.co.uk/lastchancetosee/sites/about/extinction.shtml

2.      http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/biodiversity-crisis

3.      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826898

4.      http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html

5.      http://www.iucnredlist.org/

6.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oryx_Dammah.jpg